Japan regressing to militarism?
.jpg?w=728)
By Tong Kim
Tension between the two neighboring countries of South Korea and Japan is rising at a time when their bilateral relations are at an all-time low. Recurring trouble between the two are deeply rooted in history, confrontational in territorial claims over the Dokdo islets, and emotionally sensitive in the politics of both nations. This tension, if unchecked, has the potential of developing into a new variable that may affect the intersecting interests of other players in the region, particularly the United States and China.
The latest flare-up of friction was rekindled by a series of militant, provocative statements by a number of influential Japanese politicians including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso. Standing defiant against the truth of Japan’s aggression, colonization, and sex slavery and other atrocities against the Korean people may help in Japanese politics, but it does not exonerate Japan from its past wrong.
It is apprehensive to note the reckless attitude and imprudent statements by officials of the Abe government ― which has gained a firm control of the legislature through the latest election. They appear to be undoing all the efforts, albeit insufficient, that their previous leaders had tried to do ― admitting Japan’s mistakes of the past, mending the relations with Korea and moving on to a new path of cooperation and prosperity.
Since the 1965 normalization of ROK-Japan relations, Japan’s successive foreign ministers, chief cabinet ministers, and prime ministers, as well as Emperor Hirohito and his successor Akihito, have expressed similar sorts of apology on several occasions, some of which were more explicit than others.
They admitted Japan had committed “acts of aggression and colonial rule” “causing pain and sorrow to the Korean people” or “causing tremendous suffering and damage,” using such expressions as “regret,’’ “remorse,” and “profound remorse.” Some of them said enslaving comfort women was “entirely inexcusable.” However, Japan’s apology was never accepted as a genuine one as Japan took actions to the contrary in their textbook policy or as high-ranking officials visited the Yasukuni, which enshrines 14 convicted criminals of World War II.
Abe has said, “There is no definition in academia or in the international community on what constitutes aggression: things that happen between countries appear different depending on which side you’re looking from.” His government has just released a survey result showing 61 percent of Japanese believe the disputed Dokdo is part of Japanese territory. The South Korean foreign ministry immediately protested the Japanese action, calling it “a provocative action.”
Aso made an even more controversial statement in the context of amending the Japanese constitution to expand Japan’s military role. “We could do it quietly, just as one day the Weimar Constitution was changed to the Nazis Constitution, without anyone realizing it. Why don’t we learn from this sort of tactic?” Aso quickly withdrew this statement but water was spilled and it drew condemnations from around the world.
What the Abe administration should learn from Germany is not the Nazis tactics but how the defeated Germany gained international respect and trust by providing heart-felt, sincere apology, contrition, and billions of dollars in reparations to the victims of the Nazis atrocities. Internally it was not easy for German leaders to admit, apologize and pay for the victims of the criminal acts of their previous rulers. Yet, the courageous German posterities did the right thing.
The Abe government also has some things to learn from Japan’s earlier leaders. Emperor Hirohito, for example, accepted an unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers, ready to accept the abolishment of his emperor’s status. Hirohito did this to save more lives of his people by ending the war. After the defeat in war, he readily agreed to Japan’s new constitution, renouncing the symbol of his godly status and depriving him of all his power as the ruler of Japan.
Hirohito not knowing that the fate of his life was in the hand of General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of Allied Powers, voluntarily paid his visit to the American general and said, “I come to you, General MacArthur, to offer myself to the judgment of the powers you represent as the one to bear sole responsibility for every political and military decision made and action taken by my people in the conduct of war.”
Unlike the conventional belief that the Japanese constitution was dictated by General MacArthur’s staff, it was written by a drafting committee of Japanese members, who also wrote Article 9 stipulating, “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace …, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, …will never be maintained.”
Japan’s then Prime Minister Kijiuro Shidehara, who once aspired for “a world without war,” was quoted by MacArthur in his autobiography “Reminiscences” as saying, “The world will laugh and mock us as impractical visionaries, but 100 years from now we will be called prophets.” The world is not laughing at them 69 years later. Japan’s renunciation of war potential reflected MacArthur’s adamant abhorrence of war and his wish to prevent Japan from starting or involving in another war.
Being the third largest economy with $5.4 trillion in GDP and $60 billion in military spending, Japan has enough self-defense capabilities. If it wants to go back to militarism, it would only destabilize the region. What’s your take?
The writer is a research professor at the Illmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and a visiting professor at the University of North Korean Studies. He is also an ICAS fellow. Reach him at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.